<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: There&#039;s NOTHING New About &#039;Social Blogging&#039;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://iheartz.com/moneypowerwisdom/theres-nothing-new-about-social-blogging/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://iheartz.com/moneypowerwisdom/theres-nothing-new-about-social-blogging/</link>
	<description>A blog by Dr.Mani, heart surgeon, Internet infopreneur, author and social entrepreneur!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:16:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nancy Boyd</title>
		<link>http://iheartz.com/moneypowerwisdom/theres-nothing-new-about-social-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-363</link>
		<dc:creator>Nancy Boyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:43:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://guydz.com/moneypowerwisdom/theres-nothing-new-about-social-blogging/#comment-363</guid>
		<description>If people get &quot;set&quot; in how they think about any of the web 2.0 tools like twitter, blogs, etc. it will become increasingly painful to remain there for long.

And although such things seem to spawn new offspring every hour lately, still you can put them all into the web 2.0 basket.  So far.  That too may change at an unknown point in the future.

My point here thought is that the general trend is toward participant-created content on the web.  If it isn&#039;t interactive it isn&#039;t relevant.

Recently I asked which newsletters do tweeters (people who post to Twitter) open and read every time it arrives.  Turns out I was asking the wrong question!  People don&#039;t read newsletters any more -- they subscribe to podcasts, rss feeds, and automatic updates to content providers *they* have selected out of a range of topics of supreme interest to them.

Now THAT my friends is a sea change.

So Dr. Mani is on to something here, besides who &quot;owns&quot; the content.  If you are not finding increasingly new ways to interact with the world, you&#039;d better brace yourself:  they won&#039;t care.

Just my 2 cents today. . . make today awesome.  Now is the only place you CAN interact with the Universe in real-time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If people get &#8220;set&#8221; in how they think about any of the web 2.0 tools like twitter, blogs, etc. it will become increasingly painful to remain there for long.</p>
<p>And although such things seem to spawn new offspring every hour lately, still you can put them all into the web 2.0 basket.  So far.  That too may change at an unknown point in the future.</p>
<p>My point here thought is that the general trend is toward participant-created content on the web.  If it isn&#8217;t interactive it isn&#8217;t relevant.</p>
<p>Recently I asked which newsletters do tweeters (people who post to Twitter) open and read every time it arrives.  Turns out I was asking the wrong question!  People don&#8217;t read newsletters any more &#8212; they subscribe to podcasts, rss feeds, and automatic updates to content providers *they* have selected out of a range of topics of supreme interest to them.</p>
<p>Now THAT my friends is a sea change.</p>
<p>So Dr. Mani is on to something here, besides who &#8220;owns&#8221; the content.  If you are not finding increasingly new ways to interact with the world, you&#8217;d better brace yourself:  they won&#8217;t care.</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents today. . . make today awesome.  Now is the only place you CAN interact with the Universe in real-time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
